A pour suggestion for right now, based on mood (e.g. 'unwinding', 'celebratory', 'contemplative'), occasion (e.g. 'nightcap', 'with friends', 'after dinner'), and season.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mood | No | How you're feeling | |
| season | No | Season to weight the pick toward — heavier, warming pours in winter; lighter in summer | |
| occasion | No | The setting |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the timely 'right now' framing but does not disclose what a 'pour suggestion' looks like in the response or how the suggestion is generated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the influencing factors with useful examples. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no output schema and a similar sibling like get_recommendations, the description could clarify the response shape or when to choose this tool over its sibling. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves some contextual ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds concrete example values for mood and occasion ('unwinding', 'celebratory', 'nightcap', 'with friends'), which helps an agent choose realistic inputs beyond the schema's terse descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies this as a suggestion/recommendation tool for the current moment and names the three relevant inputs: mood, occasion, and season. It is specific about the intent, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb and does not explicitly differentiate it from the similar 'get_recommendations' sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for right now' establishes when this tool is appropriate, and the mood/occasion/season basis gives clear context for invocation. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes: search, get details, compare, find similar, find cheaper, recommend, suggest for tonight, and trending. However, 'find_similar' and 'find_cheaper_alternative' overlap somewhat in that both return similar bottles, though one explicitly filters by price. 'pour_tonight_suggestion' and 'get_recommendations' also both provide recommendations, but differ in input (mood/occasion vs. taste/budget).
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: compare_bottles, find_cheaper_alternative, find_similar, get_bottle, get_recommendations, pour_tonight_suggestion, search_bottles, trending_bottles. The only minor deviation is 'pour_tonight_suggestion' which is a bit more descriptive than the others, but it still fits the pattern.
8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool covers a distinct user need: searching, retrieving details, comparing, finding alternatives, getting recommendations, and seeing trends. No tool feels redundant or unnecessary.
The tool surface covers the core discovery and recommendation workflows well: search, get details, compare, find similar/cheaper, get personalized recommendations, and see trends. Minor gaps include no explicit tool for filtering by age or rating, and no way to get a list of all bottles in a category, but these are workable via search_bottles.